Laserfiche WebLink
<br />7A <br />Page 89 <br /> <br />R2 DENSITY TIMELINE (single family dwellings) <br /> <br />Density <br />Units/Acre <br />t <br />-=nJ)--.... <br />+- <br />15 1= . <br /> <br />~~___._... 1977 R2 Density Revision <br /> <br />Kentfield 2009 Planning Commission <br />approved 16 single-family per acre using <br />City's interpretation of R2 density <br /> <br />\\ City's Interpretation <br />~_.- 17.4 single-family <br />per acre <br /> <br />I <br />-, <br />j <br />I <br />i <br />10.-"'t.. <br />-~. <br />-+------.-.-..--.... <br />-t.. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />...~ <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />--_.-_.~--_._---_._........ 8.7 single-family <br />e per acre <br /> <br />+ <br /> <br />5 ..+ <br />-I-- <br /> <br />-~-Ht++++j++++j-t I i <br />, 1980 1990 <br />1977 <br /> <br />1 I 1 I I I I I ! I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />2000 <br /> <br />: +-+t.--.... Year <br />2010 <br /> <br />We need to go back to 1979 to find a project with a density that might be considered consistent with the <br />City's interpretation of R2 dens[ty. And that project may have been approved prior the 19n R2 Density <br />Revision. Using projects that were built prior to the 1917 R2 Density Revision, one can find projects that <br />are "consistent" to the City's interpretation of R2 density. But, the graph clearly shows the City's <br />interpretation of R2 density is NOT consistent with projects built after the 1977 R2 Density Revision. <br /> <br />CEOA EXEMPTION <br /> <br />Frequently in the Initial Study, the statement Jlall development that would be permitted under any of <br />the three alternative density standards would be required to comply with CEQA requirements before It <br />could be approved" is encountered. This is a misleading statement. When one reads such a statement, <br />one would naturally assume that the environmental impact of the project is reviewed which would be <br />Incorrect. <br /> <br />CEQA allows an exemption for in-flll projects. Last year, City Staff testified the exemption was available <br />and that City Staff was considering exercising the exemptlon6. As such, qualifying in-fill projects can be <br />CEQA compliant without an environmental review. This is a project that impacts more than GOO acres. <br />Since individual projects in R2 may be CEQA compliant without an environmental, it is very important <br />that this Initial Study be complete and adequate. <br /> <br />6 Ms Jill Ekas testimony; April 21 $t 2009; Planning Commission meeting. <br /> <br />lS <br />